Old, million-dollar violins don’t play better than the new models

New research shows that the most valuable violins in the world aren't …

The old adage tells us not to judge a book by its cover, and now it seems as though we shouldn’t judge a violin by its price. Violins crafted in the so-called "golden age" by expert makers Antonio Stradivari and Guiseppe Guarneri "del Gesu" are worth up to several million dollars each, and they have long been considered the best violins in the world. However, nobody has studied whether or not these instruments are actually superior to other violins in their tonal qualities. New research in PNAS shows that these lofty prices might not actually reflect how musicians actually feel about the instruments themselves.

The research took place at the Eighth International Violin Competition of Indianapolis, a prestigious gathering of violinists, violin experts, and violin makers. Twenty-one subjects were included in the experiment, and all were very experienced violinists. The researchers used six violins in their tests; three were new high-quality violins, ranging from just a few days to a few years old, and three were old violins (two Stradivari and a del Gesu) crafted in the 1700’s. The three old violins were worth a combined total of $10 million, which was about one hundred times the combined value of the new ones. The musicians were unaware of the objective of the experiment, as well as the identities of the six violins used.

The sample sizes here are admittedly small, but as the paper notes, “it is difficult to persuade the owners of fragile, enormously valuable old violins to release them for extended periods into the hands of blindfolded strangers.”

While the violinists weren’t actually blindfolded, their sight was indeed compromised. Both the researchers and the violinists had to wear modified welders’ goggles that limited their vision. And for good reason: experienced violinists can recognize a prized Italian violin instantly by its appearance. Just as wine tasters’ preferences are influenced by a wine’s price, it’s likely that violinists’s perceptions would be swayed by the reputation of an old Stradivari or a Del Gesu violin. Therefore, the experiment was carefully designed to be double-blind; neither the musicians nor the experimenters knew which violin was which. The researchers went so far as to place a drop of scent on each violin’s chinrest, in case the instruments could be distinguished by their smell.

The experiment had two phases. In the first, the researchers wanted to determine whether the musicians had an immediate preference for the old violins, as the instruments’ value would predict. They presented the violinists with pairs of violins, one old and one new (which was unbeknownst to the subjects). The violinists were given one minute to play each instrument, then asked which they preferred. Each violinist tried ten pairs of violins, covering each possible old-new pairing with one pair tested a second time to see whether the preferences remained consistent.

As it turned out, the violinists were remarkably inconsistent in their choices in this test. Barely half of the musicians made the same choice twice when presented with a pair of violins a second time. The experimenters suggest that this method may not have allowed the violinists enough time to choose the better instrument. However, one result was clear: the violinists didn't prefer the old violins to the new ones. This trend was driven by a definite dislike for one particular instrument: the oldest Stradivari. This violin was consistently picked as the poorer of the pair, while the other five violins were chosen with about equal frequencies.

In the second part of the experiment, the violinists had more opportunity to evaluate the violins. They had one hour to play all six of the violins in any order, and could switch back and forth between the instruments as they wished. At the end of the hour, they were asked to choose "the instrument they would most like to take home with them," and to pick the best and worst violin in four categories: range of tone colors, projection, playability, and response. Again, the double-blind controls prevented both researchers and musicians from recognizing the instruments.

Again, the old Stradivari was the least popular of the six instruments. It was chosen just once to “take home,” and was rated by six violinists as their least favorite. It also ended up being deemed the worst violin in a category sixteen different times. In contrast, one of the newer violins was the clear winner. Eight musicians wanted to take it home, and nobody called it their least favorite. The violinists rated this one as the best violin in a category 38 times.

Overall, just eight violinists (less than 40 percent) wanted to take one of the three "golden age" violins home. When asked to guess what era their favorite violin was made in, seven guessed wrongly, just three guessed correctly, and the rest either didn’t know or declined to offer a guess.

While these results aren’t a decisive victory for the new models, it definitely counters the wisdom that these old, highly valuable violins are unmatched in quality. In many cases, the old and new instruments are equal in quality - in some, the new models are superior to their “golden age” counterparts.

There is clearly a lot of variation that wasn’t controlled for in this study. The violinists ranged in age and years of experience, and the violins were tested in only one set of acoustic conditions. Additionally, they were rated only by the players themselves, not by listeners situated where an audience would ordinarily be. And, of course, different violinists have different preferences when it comes to their instruments.

Scientists and music aficionados alike have been trying to figure out what aspects of craftsmanship make a violin sound great and play well, but there are no clear answers yet. There are hypotheses that the density of the wood, certain properties of the varnish, and the way the front and back of the instrument are tuned determine a violin’s quality. All we know right now is that being crafted in the golden age by a famous maker may not be enough to make a good violin great.

139 Reader Comments

I'd say the results demonstrate pretty conclusively that there's no essential difference and preferences are essentially random. This suggests that we've already figured out what makes a violin great since people are currently making great violins.

So basically high end violins share a category with high end audio. Buying a Strad is very much like buying a gold power cable.

This article completely misses why people pay outrageous sums of money for old instruments, like those made by Stradivarius. Nobody believes they sound better. They are paying for something rare, just like people would pay extra for anything of quality that was rare (from baseball cards to cars). Any good violinist will simply choose whatever sounds better to them regardless of where or when it was made and by whom.

I'd say the results demonstrate pretty conclusively that there's no essential difference and preferences are essentially random. This suggests that we've already figured out what makes a violin great since people are currently making great violins.

So basically high end violins share a category with high end audio. Buying a Strad is very much like buying a gold power cable.

The original probably gave up all of it's secrets long ago.

Just like any other sort of "enthusiasm", there are probably plenty of people who already acknowledge that there's little difference between the cheaper copies and the high priced status symbol.

This is common with anything. The Stradivari is a rare collectable and therefore demands much more valuable than the latter. For instance, I own a mid grade Les Paul with a couple of modern upgrades that sound just as good, if not better, than a classic Gibson Les Paul that sells for 1,000x the price.

There is also a certain kudos that comes with an expensive violin. If you are serious and have the money then you will go for what you can afford. It's not necessarily the best and you can get a cheaper version that will be as good as if not better in some areas. There is also some magic associated to it, history and provenance. This is exactly why I own a Leica M9. My Canon 5D2 beats it in most areas but the pure joy I get from using the M9 is far far greater than the 5D.

I'm actually impressed by the performance of the golden age violins. Even after 250 years of wear, they performed closely to modern high quality violins. It sounds like especially if you remove the oldest, you'd get almost 50/50 choices between old and new.

That all our precision crafting technology, our ability to observe sound waves, hasn't produced a meaningful improvement over the work of these craftsmen is somewhat remarkable. That the violins can still compete 250 years later, especially so. I can certainly believe that at one time a Stradivari was head and shoulders above other violins.

So basically high end violins share a category with high end audio. Buying a Strad is very much like buying a gold power cable.

You don't show off your gold power cables to flaunt your wealth and refinement.

It's a cool piece of history, regardless of its tonal quality or your ability to show it off. Whether it be in a museum or in the hands of someone privately that recognizes its rarity, it's cool that it's being preserved.

This article completely misses why people pay outrageous sums of money for old instruments, like those made by Stradivarius. Nobody believes they sound better. They are paying for something rare, just like people would pay extra for anything of quality that was rare (from baseball cards to cars). Any good violinist will simply choose whatever sounds better to them regardless of where or when it was made and by whom.

I'm sure some people actually do believe it. A lot more claim to because they think admitting it's just a status symbol would make them petty and materialistic and they don't want to see themselves like that or they don't want others to have the ammo to call them out on it as a character flaw (perceived or otherwise).

I'm really surprised. On the NPR website, they posted two clips from a modern instrument and a Strad, and I thought that the difference was fairly clear.

Having actually heard a friend play a little bit on an old Italian in person (she was instrument shopping at the time and the shop owner brought out a viola from the 1600s as a comparison), I thought that the old instruments sounded noticeably different - much smoother, perhaps more mellow and less bright, but really resonant. I've also heard that some of the old instruments are much less forgiving - they reveal a lot more of the flaws in one's playing, but sound noticeably better in the hands of a top notch musician.

In fairness, not every Strad is up to the same quality - clearly Stradivarius almost made some duds that are probably worth a lot more than they should be just because of the name. But some of the best instruments (i.e. the Davidov Strad owned by du Pre and now by Yo-Yo Ma) really do sound excellent, even on recordings.

There's really no mystery: an instrument is only a supplement to the player's skill. A great violinist can make a $500 instrument sound good, and with a so-called elite instrument that violinist will sound even better. A mediocre player will sound mediocre with or without a million dollar violin. The quality of the bow matters a lot as well.

What is often overlooked is that each particular instrument has its unique attributes, its pros and cons, and it's rare that a player finds an instrument that ideally fits their interpretive playstyle, physique, and strengths. A $5,000 instrument may be a better fit for someone than say one that's $50,000. It's sort of like lightsabers in SW or wands in Harry Potter, your ideal tool is specific to you.

It is not the first time such experiments have been conducted, with the same inconclusive (random) results. Also, a violin sounds quite different from right under your ear or from a distance. Usually the best violins would sound harsh and unpleasant under the ear, so the player would be the last one you would want an opinion from.

Good practical test! Plenty of people believed the Strads were "better." I would have liked to go one step further and see actual sound waveform comparisons, showing from the musicians own preferences what warmth, timbre, etcetera are considered better or worse.

As an old brass musician myself, I firmly believe you pay up for a certain level of quality and materials. Beyond that it becomes an intangible. Also, if it helps an artist's confidence to use a fancy-name or antique instrument then it has placebo benefit, but still real enough.

Just pointing out that the violin in the article pic isn't a Stradivarius, but a later reproduction. The real ones didn't use paper labels. I have a similar pretty nice reproduction I picked up at a yard sale for $5 before I knew the difference. Still a good deal, since it plays!

I'm really surprised. On the NPR website, they posted two clips from a modern instrument and a Strad, and I thought that the difference was fairly clear.

Having actually heard a friend play a little bit on an old Italian in person (she was instrument shopping at the time and the shop owner brought out a viola from the 1600s as a comparison), I thought that the old instruments sounded noticeably different - much smoother, perhaps more mellow and less bright, but really resonant. I've also heard that some of the old instruments are much less forgiving - they reveal a lot more of the flaws in one's playing, but sound noticeably better in the hands of a top notch musician.

In fairness, not every Strad is up to the same quality - clearly Stradivarius almost made some duds that are probably worth a lot more than they should be just because of the name. But some of the best instruments (i.e. the Davidov Strad owned by du Pre and now by Yo-Yo Ma) really do sound excellent, even on recordings.

Saying modern instrument doesn't mean much. What quality? Modern instruments come in many price ranges and grades from cheap-o first timers learning tool, all the way to professional grade experts instrument. People buying these old time high priced instruments are less doing so for the sound and more doing it for personal reasons (whether it's appreciation for a piece of history, a love of the art, or simply to show off).

I'm not disputing anything in the article, because it points out that nothing conclusive can be drawn from the study, but I would be very curious to know how they qualified these individuals as "very experienced" players. As any musician/craftsman/artist/etc. can tell you, number of years doing something doesn't equate to knowledge or expertise.

I've been fortunate enough to hear Elizabeth Pitcairn (owner of the famous "Red Violin") perform on several occasions, and I would say that the playability of a Stradivarius is equal parts quality of the instrument and skill of the person playing it.

What is often overlooked is that each particular instrument has its unique attributes, its pros and cons, and it's rare that a player finds an instrument that ideally fits their interpretive playstyle, physique, and strengths. A $5,000 instrument may be a better fit for someone than say one that's $50,000. It's sort of like lightsabers in SW or wands in Harry Potter, your ideal tool is specific to you.

Keep in mind this was a comparison of million dollar violins and $30K-$40K violins. There is a lot of room for improvement in materials and crafting technique between the price of a few grand and a few $10’s of thousands.

Isn't it possible that because Golden Age violins are so rare, very few professional violinists are accustomed to them?

If you switch equipment with anything that requires a certain level of technical skill you'll rarely say, "Oh I like the new one better." after such a short period of time.

This is a very good point. I will say, conversely, as a sax player that I once had the chance to play a Selmer Mark VI tenor (which is an analog to Golden Age violins in the sax world), and I swear that thing played itself. It was like butter, and I was able to play notes and riffs which I had never been able to on my own horn. So, I think, there is something to be said for a better tool facilitating a better result, as well as a better tool requiring more time to master.

Eh, music is a pretty subjective area, I'm not sure how much conclusive testing you can do that doesn't involve objective (non-human) measurements. Still, I'm sure the modern instrument manufacturers will be quite happy to have this kind of data in their corner. "In studies, our violin was favored more than two Stradivari by experts!"

I think there's a sense of unbalanced nostalgia among people (which has happened before). People long for "the good old days." Doesn't matter that even the royals' teeth were rotting out of their heads, that workers got stuff like "phossy jaw" (if you have a sensitive stomach, do NOT look up that disease), or that countries were a good bit more bloodthirsty back then (if people in the Middle East think the US and the UK are bad with collateral damage now, they should ask the people of Hamburg about Operation Gomorrah or Hiroshima). Want a good way to shock a redneck? Tell him that their beloved gun industry got Congress to make sure that John Moses Browning (arguably the best gun designer who ever lived) couldn't open a factory in the US and had to go to Belgium.

Having said that, the Mona Lisa is not my favorite piece of art and I have seen several more contemporary works that I think just look better (a few were popular among critics too). Which one is more likely to cause an international incident if stolen from a country?

I'm inclined to think that in our current times the experts are judging quality based upon past performance.How do we know what a violin is supposed to sound like?If we judge all current models against the historic models then they might never "be better" because we can't fabricate 300 years of decay and aging.

It's a vicious circle, it sound like to me.Experts playing on very old equipment say that their music sounds the best.People listening are told the same thing.Eventually enough people have heard the music and been told the quality. These people become "attuned" to quality sound for said category of equipment.They tell the rest of us laymen, and aspiring musicians, when the music sounds good or not, based upon training that old equipment sounds better.Rinse, repeat... the "old equipment sounds better" gets propagated.

I thought that, prestige aside, you bought a Strad because it was a known quantity and you that it would not lose its quality over time. The new ones may sound good today, but what will they sound like tomorrow?

This article completely misses why people pay outrageous sums of money for old instruments, like those made by Stradivarius. Nobody believes they sound better. They are paying for something rare, just like people would pay extra for anything of quality that was rare (from baseball cards to cars). Any good violinist will simply choose whatever sounds better to them regardless of where or when it was made and by whom.

Quite a few people believe they sound better. To the extent that money has been spent trying to figure out why they sound better...whether some property of the wood, some manufacturing technique, whatever.

This is basically an offshoot of that, set on proving that they don't actually sound better, and that it's all in our heads.

If you didn't actually believe it sounded better, why would you ever play with it professionally? Every time you traveled with it would be one more chance of theft or damage. You'd be better off with a newer but still high quality violin (costing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars), and you'd keep the Strad in a case and play it only on special occasions.

The biggest flaw in this experiment, of course, was mentioned (in the article, and in another comment)...the player is not the one you want judging the sound. Duh. I'd be unsurpirsed if much of the perceived difference isn't psychological, but it's hard to prove using any quantitative measure...it can be hard to isolate in spectral analysis just what the listener is describing as "warmth" or "brightness."

Kate (or her artist), I'm pretty sure Stradivari (or his label maker) didn't use a relatively modern font like... What's that, Gotham Black? ... on his labels, and he was a hanger-on to the then-old tradition that a "v" in the middle of the word was represented with a "u" instead. The labels on real Strads have his name written as "Stradiuarius".

The same can be said for old electric guitars. The going price for a '59 Les Paul is astronomical and the people that pay those outrageous prices will be quick to tell you there's no comparison...even though, honestly, you can't tell the difference between that and a "Historic" replica that Gibson makes today...following how they made them back then. And yes, even those are way overpriced. An Historic Reissue '59 is around $5-6K.

But then again, there's a psychological element here. As with things artistic, if the player "thinks" he's playing better or sounding better on this instrument or that, then so be it. If he or she plays better as a result just from them fooling themselves, again: so be it.

This article completely misses why people pay outrageous sums of money for old instruments, like those made by Stradivarius. Nobody believes they sound better. They are paying for something rare, just like people would pay extra for anything of quality that was rare (from baseball cards to cars). Any good violinist will simply choose whatever sounds better to them regardless of where or when it was made and by whom.

Quite a few people believe they sound better. To the extent that money has been spent trying to figure out why they sound better...whether some property of the wood, some manufacturing technique, whatever.

This is basically an offshoot of that, set on proving that they don't actually sound better, and that it's all in our heads.

If you didn't actually believe it sounded better, why would you ever play with it professionally? Every time you traveled with it would be one more chance of theft or damage. You'd be better off with a newer but still high quality violin (costing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars), and you'd keep the Strad in a case and play it only on special occasions.

The biggest flaw in this experiment, of course, was mentioned (in the article, and in another comment)...the player is not the one you want judging the sound. Duh. I'd be unsurpirsed if much of the perceived difference isn't psychological, but it's hard to prove using any quantitative measure...it can be hard to isolate in spectral analysis just what the listener is describing as "warmth" or "brightness."

The player is not the one who should judge the sound? Idiotic. They are controlling the sound completely, and are consequently the only ones who should judge whether one instrument is better or worse than another. If they can achieve what *they* want it to sound like, who is someone else to say they are wrong?

The acoustics of the room (and lack of variation) is a huge issue for me. I know my $3K acoustic guitar sounds great but there are some days and some rooms that it just doesn't sound great in. And my mood and mindset greatly influences how I perceive the sound and playability of the instrument. I don't have a problem with the study, because they admit they can't draw conclusions, but I just thought I would throw that out there.

What bugs me about this experiment is that the musicians aren't playing their own instruments and are thus unaccustomed to them. It is perfectly possible that a musician whose default violin is a Strad will make sweeter music with a Strad than another professional will make with his default non-Strad. Similarly, it is possible that knowing you are playing a Strad actually does make you play more beautifully, perhaps because you e.g. hold it more lovingly. Finally, it may be the case that wearing an uncomfortable, distracting welder's mask causes a reduction in play quality that smooths the differences between the instruments. This of course means that a control is really impossible and the experiment is semi-crappy.

As a working guitarist, I own many (20+) guitars; all of different vintage and price. Price can sometimes new a good judge of quality, but not always. is no way that a test like this can draw any meaningful conclusions- the variables in this are completely non-measurable.

There are many reasons to own a vintage instrument. All of them include some measure of subjectivity in them.

Isn't it possible that because Golden Age violins are so rare, very few professional violinists are accustomed to them?

If you switch equipment with anything that requires a certain level of technical skill you'll rarely say, "Oh I like the new one better." after such a short period of time.

This is a very good point. I will say, conversely, as a sax player that I once had the chance to play a Selmer Mark VI tenor (which is an analog to Golden Age violins in the sax world), and I swear that thing played itself. It was like butter, and I was able to play notes and riffs which I had never been able to on my own horn. So, I think, there is something to be said for a better tool facilitating a better result, as well as a better tool requiring more time to master.

I'd be interested to see the results of a similar experiment that allowed the violinists to play the instruments over several days. An hour doesn't seem like long enough to get to know a single instrument, much less six.

Kate Shaw Yoshida / Kate is a science writer for Ars Technica. She recently earned a dual Ph.D. in Zoology and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior from Michigan State University, studying the social behavior of wild spotted hyenas.